Archive for the ‘income redistribution’ Category

Barack Obama has shown his distain for American Workers — and they noticed.

Joe the Plumber is a regular guy — and when he asked about the Obama Tax Plan ‘Barack the Messiah’ told him he’d have to give up a portion of his work wages to people that don’t work at all — and that this was good for everyone.

Joe didn’t buy it.

Me neither.

So Mr. Obama, thanks for sending out ‘Joe Biden the Idiot’ and a host of surrogates who are now attacking Joe the Plumber and all he stands for.

Above: Barack Obama, who has looked the fool without a teleprompter, is seen here with telepromper help…..But his distain for the American Worker is Now On The Table….

Barack: You have shown who you really are!

Barack: Joe the Plumber stands for all Workers in America, Dude. Workers who are tired — and they pay their taxes.

You, Barack, apparently stand for people without jobs. And you want to give them our money.

No Way Barack! No way in Hell my friend…..

Go figure!

Supporter holding a placard with his name and profession waits for US Republican presidential candidate John McCain to arrive at a rally in Woodbridge, Virginia. McCain blasted Democratic rival Barack Obama, again citing the example of “Joe the Plumber” to claim that small businesses would suffer from increased taxes under the Democrat’s economic plan.(AFP/Nicholas Kamm)

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. holds up a t-shirt that was handed to him at the end of a rally in Melbourne, Fla., Friday, Oct. 17, 2008.(AP Photo/John Raoux)

MIAMI – Republican John McCain told crowds in this battleground state Friday to “hold onto your wallet” because his Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, has talked of spreading the wealth around. McCain suggested voters could not rely on Obama’s promise of tax cuts while returning once more to the story of Joe the Plumber, a regular part of McCain’s speeches since the Arizona senator first mentioned the tax concerns of Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher in Wednesday’s presidential debate.

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. holds up a t-shirt that was handed to him at the end of a rally in Melbourne, Fla., Friday, Oct. 17, 2008.(AP Photo/John Raoux)

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

Florida was McCain’s first stop on a two-day tour through states, including North Carolina and Virginia, where he has surrendered his lead in polls during the past month despite their history of supporting Republican presidential candidates.

Last Sunday as Obama walked through Wurzelbacher’s Holland, Ohio, neighborhood, Wurzelbacher asked him whether his plan to increase taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year would impede his ability to buy the plumbing company where he works. Obama replied that those making over $250,000 would be taxed more but that money would be returned to the middle-class through tax cuts. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Obama said.

The McCain campaign seized on that remark.

“When politicians talk about taking your money and spreading it around, you’d better hold onto your wallet,” McCain told a Miami rally crowd. “Sen. Obama claims that he want to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes for the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s not a tax cut; that’s welfare.”

McCain, who bestowed the nickname “Joe the Plumber” on Wurzelbacher during the debate, claimed Friday that “the response from Sen. Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe.”

In fact, Obama, his running mateJoe Biden and their campaign have barely mentioned Wurzelbacher. Obama and Biden both attacked McCain for portraying Wurzelbacher as representative of most blue-collar workers, asking how many plumbers make $250,000 a year.

I’m no economist but I can read and think and I stated categorically last March 8, 2008, that the United States was in a recession. I made this statement after mulling over the facts starting around September 2007. Turns out I was fully seven months ahead of former Fed Charman Paul Volcker who made the brilliant deduction today, October 14, 2008, that the U.S. was in a recession. The current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Bush have still not acknowledged the recession we are in now.

You ever feel like you were living in a nightmare? Now I know how the players in “Alice in Wonderland” must have felt.

Then we have John McCain and Barack Obama and their last debate. The event looked like a high school picnic with both parties afraid to speak the truth for fear of offending the other. One can only hope and pray that one or both of these guys grows the gonads to say something meaningful during their final debate October 15.

Mr. Obama was captured on video this week telling a potential voter (a plumber) that he believed “if you spread the wealth around” that this was good for everyone. Well, if a gunman takes my wallet and gets my hard earned cash it is by no means good for me, the guy that earned the loot that the gunman got for free.

The Orange County Register spoke about the same issue in an editorial this week. We’ve republished that below for readers who really care to know:

Orance County (CA) Register
Editorial
October 13, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama proposes a welfare plan that will transfer billions of dollars from those who earned it and to others who didn’t.

He doesn’t call his plan “welfare” or even “hand-outs,” which would be accurate descriptions. Instead, Mr. Obama portrays this massive redistribution of wealth as “tax cuts,” which is more palatable to voters. Who could object to tax cuts?

The presidential aspirant from Illinois says he will “cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families … .” The first of many problems with this claim is that only about 62 percent of U.S. households pay anyincome taxes. How then under Mr. Obama’s plan can most of the other 38 percent who already pay no income tax also get a tax cut?

The answer is that their tax liability will be reduced by giving them tax credits. Most people recognize the absurdity of lessening a burden that’s already zero. But, after all, it is an election year.

In one sense, 95 percent of American workers and their families will benefit from this scheme with either less money going out or more coming in. But they profit only at a huge cost for the remaining 5 percent, who happen to earn more income than Mr. Obama thinks is proper.

That small minority of the populace will be stuck with the bill. Their taxes will increase in order to provide for the cash not collected from or handed out to 95 percent of us. This no doubt has a short-sighted appeal for many of the 95 percent.

Except by degree, this also is not new to Washington, where people routinely send their money in order that the government can send it back out again to people who didn’t earn it.

In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of credits and deduction. The number had mushroomed to 44 million by 2006, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit organization that has provided information about government finance since 1937.

“The nation’s tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households,” the Tax Foundation reports.

Mr. Obama is proposing to buy the support of a broad swath of voters with the money earned by a narrow band of America’s most wealthy. He assures voters that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see an increase in taxes. Why $250,000? It’s probably as arbitrary distinction as the rest of the numbers in his tax plan. Why eliminate taxes for seniors making less than $50,000, as he proposes? Why not $30,000 or $75,000? Why provide a 10 percent mortgage interest tax credit instead of 5 or 20 percent? Why reduce taxes by $3,700 on married couples making $75,000 with two children, one in college? Why not $5,000 or $1,000?

We suspect Mr. Obama’s metrics have more to do with how many votes he can acquire, rather than how much fairness he can inject into the tax system. And he will acquire those votes by taking then spending other peoples’ money.

There are other costs. The Heritage Foundation says Mr. Obama’s tax proposal would increase the U.S. top marginal income tax rate from 42.7 percent to 56 percent, making it comparable to Sweden’s 56, Germany’s 57 and Belgium’s 60 percent. Part of the price paid in those economies, says the Heritage Foundation, is high unemployment from 7 to 9.8 percent. Moreover, high tax rates also encourage capital and income flight to lower-taxed areas.

But there’s an even more costly price in Mr. Obama’s tax proposal. We favor reducing taxes as a matter of fairness. But there is nothing fair about a minority footing the entire bill while large segments or even majority segments of the population pay little if any taxes or receive government handouts.